David, you are doing the equivalent of using a physics model to predict
whether airplanes should have knocked down the WTC.
Back in the day, a lot of people slammed FEMA for not doing exactly
that, and for, instead, using a parametrized model to figure out /how/
the WTC collapsed.
In the case of 9/11 they used the parametrized approach because it was
already screamingly in-your-face obvious that airplanes hit the
buildings and then they fell down and they were trying to figure out
/how/, not /whether/, they collapsed.
The same goes here. From the lack of gigantic heat sinks sticking out
of the roof of the "customer site", we know beyond a reasonable doubt
that /there was no 1 MW of heat/. So a detailed analysis of the data
should be directed toward determining /how/ the heat was faked, not
/whether/ the heat was faked.
Your approach is to analyse the details in an attempt at determining
/whether/ the heat was faked. But we already know that.
It's like you've watched a magician make a woman turn into a tiger, and
you're trying to analyze everything you saw him do while he was on stage
in an effort to determine /whether she really turned into a tiger/.
Seriously, that's not going to lead to anything of much value. Trying
to figure out /how he faked it/ would be a lot more useful.
On 08/26/2016 03:24 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 08/26/2016 02:04 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I have been pursuing my model as to how Rossi might be able to show
gauge readings that imply that 1 MW of steam is being delivered while
not being an accurate assessment of the real power.
I assumed that the information published by Engineer48 in
E-CATWORLD.com is accurate.
Why?
The readings which were recorded are /extremely/ implausible, to the
point of being impossible. So why would you assume they're correct?
It's a very reasonable guess is that the readings, as recorded, were
entirely bogus -- the actual values were not what was written down.
And once you've admitted that detail, the rest of it falls immediately
-- a tiny inaccuracy in recording the pressure, plus another
inaccuracy in recording the flow rate, and you're done.
Who are the hoard of witnesses that attested that the data as recorded
was exactly as the gauges read?
At this point all I can say is that we need more data before we can
prove that Rossi is not being truthfully.
Bosh. Go back to the discussion of /where the 1 megawatt of heat was
dumped//./ There was no megawatt of heat dumped on the "customer
site". Rossi claimed there was. What more proof do you need? The
rest is just details. The details may be interesting, but they
/follow/ the proof in this case, they don't provide the proof.
